Observational studyInternal and emergency medicine2025
Perfusion index: could it be a new tool for early identification of pulmonary embolism severity?
Observational study in Internal and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Plethysmographic measurements as novel predictors of mortality in pulmonary embolism.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Article
- Peripheral perfusion index of pulse oximetry in adult patients: a narrative review.European journal of medical research · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Perfusion index (PI) is a promising indicator for monitoring peripheral perfusion. The present study aimed to compare the efficiency of PI and PESI score in estimating the 30-day mortality and treatment needs of patients diagnosed with pulmonary embolism in the emergency department. This study was prospective and observational. The demographic features of the patients, comorbidities, vital signs, PESI score, PI, treatment applied to the patient and airway management, right ventricular diameter/left ventricular diameter ratio, length of hospital stay, outcome, and 30-day mortality were recorded. A total of 94 patients were included. All patients' vital signs and PI values were recorded on admission. The mean pulse rate (p = 0.001) and shock index (p = 0.017) values of deceased patients were statistically significantly higher, while the mean PI (p = 0.034) was statistically significantly lower. PESI score and PI were statistically significant to predict the need for mechanical ventilation (PI, p = 0.004; PESI score, p < 0.001), inotropic treatment (PI, p = 0.047; PESI score p = 0.005), and thrombolytic therapy (PI, p = 0.035; PESI score p = 0.003). According to the ROC curve, the mortality prediction power of both PESI (AUC: 0.787, 95% CI 0.688-0.886, cutoff: 109.5, p < 0.001) and PI index (AUC: 0.668, 95% CI 0.543-0.793, cutoff: 1, p = 0.011) were determined as statistically significant. PI might be helpful in clinical practice as a tool that can be applied to predict mortality and treatment needs in PE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38720051What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.